[09:02:57]

>> Mayor Leffingwell: A
quorum is present so we'll
call this work session of
the austin city council to
order on tuesday,
DECEMBER 11th, 2012.

We're meeting in the boards
and commission room, austin
city hall, 301 west second
street, austin, texas.

The time is 9:05 a.m.

So we really only have one
item.

Before we take up that item,
councilmember martinez has
asked for a minute to speak
on a point of personal
privilege.

We can't discuss identify.

>> Martinez: We're not
posted for this so I'm going
to throw this out for all of
us to hear and maybe discuss
at a later date but for
specifically to city manager
and city attorney.

Don't want to raise a big
fuss about this but we've
had an issue on the trail
where the health department
has precluded putting water
on the trail for health
reasons.

Run tex does this at a
personal expense of over
$100,000 a year.

It's a tremendous benefit to
the people who use the

[09:04:00]

trail.

It's a benefit to us because
we don't have to pay for
refilling those water tanks.

And I get it.

They cited a health concern
of potential tampering with
them so now they are
requiring them to go and
fill those containers
through a licensed
commissary and then build a
structure around them to
secure them from tampering.

And I understand the public
health concern, but we have
water jugs at every golf
course in town and I dare
say they are not secure and
a water fountain, for that
matter, is not necessarily
tamper proof.

I just hope that we can come
up with some common sense
approaches to addressing
these concerns because we
have hundreds if not
thousands of runners a day
that use the trail and this
is a huge service that they
provide at absolutely no
cost to us.

So I'm just hoping we can
find some common ground and
resolve the issue quickly.

Thank you, mayor.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So
council, for this morning we
only have one pre-selected
item so we'll go ahead and
take that item up and then
go into executive session.

And I believe that item was
pulled by councilmember
morrison.

>> Morrison: Thank you,
mayor.

Yes, I pulled item number
12, which is a -- our first
family business loan asking
for approval, and I am going
to need some help from --
and discussion from economic
growth, and it's also been
involved with planning and
development review.

The issue that arose is that
the loan sounds like a
wonderful project, for a
wonderful project in the
, but i
started asking questions
because it's a entertainment
venue and I had some
discomfort.

I thought there was concern
about potentially spread of
entertainment districts and

[09:06:00]

all that.

So as we started looking at
it, we started looking at
the zoning that's allowed --
what land uses are allowed
there and questions arose
because indoor entertainment
is prohibited, outdoor
entertainment is prohibited,
community events are
prohibit in the zoning and
so the director of egrso has
helped us with that and i
think it would be helpful if
you brought us up to date on
what's going on and what the
history is, how it's going
to be resolved.

And for me it raises some
questions about
interpretations that maybe
we need to get resolved.

>> Thank you, yes, kevin
johns, director egrso.

As you know, this is our
first proposed family
business loan program, and
our focus is to revitalize
the -- our innercity
neighborhoods and to
implement the t.o.d. plans.

And so, of course, we're
very cognizant of what those
plans are.

And our goal is to be a
catalyst for development
that is consistent with the
plans.

So several months ago on
this particular development,
which is a $5 million
development which is a
theater that has as its goal
a multipurpose convention,
business center, wedding
center, but also would show
movies and have theater and
plays and music.

Which also has a restaurant
and a parking deck for
development of about
$5 million.

And our discussions began
about four or five months
ago with the planning
department, and up until
recently we were operating
under the assumption it was

[09:08:00]

an approved use in the
t.o.d. zoning.

And the -- the business
owner has been operating
under the same premise.

His application has said
that it is a theater use and
the uses that I've described
to you are also included in
that, so it is kind of a
combination of uses.

And in our discussions to
move this forward, it has
been -- the loan has been
set up by the bank based
upon it having the
appropriate zoning.

The owner has approved all
the architectural renderings
have been prepared, he's
taken out a loan, the
property has been optioned
so these moved forward over
the last few months to pull
this together.

And so I guess where we
stand today is that the --
one of the -- the planning
review or one of the
planning reviewers has had
second thoughts and I think
that the issue that you
outlined is the correct
issue.

This is kind of a hybrid.

It's not a clear-cut it's
this or it's that, it's a
combination.

It's kind of like the alamo
draft house.

And so it doesn't fall into
a specific category that is
easily discernible.

And so based upon that,
friday we received an email
from the planning department
and they questioned whether
it was an aallowable use.

And so we have convened
again with planning
department, we met with them
yesterday, and they are
meeting the next couple of
days to review it again.

Originally it was considered
an approved use and then
there's been second thoughts

[09:10:01]

because of the things we
discussed, because of the
amount of music that's
involved.

And I hope that it will be
resolved one way or another.

I hope it will be resolved
so that the development can
go forward.

As you'll recall, the -- the
economic impact of doing
this project would be --
would be pretty substantial.

It would be 30 jobs.

51% Would be for low and
moderate income people in
the neighborhood who could
walk to the position.

It would be the first major
new development in the
saltillo plaza area.

It would allow suburbanites
to use the train and I'm
hopeful it will be resolved
in the next couple of days.

But because it came up
unexpectedly on friday, i
did pull it.

>> Morrison: I appreciate
that, kevin, and I think
that, you know, I wasn't on
the council and I wasn't
involved in the development
and
the land use plan and so i
don't really have a real
strong sense of what the
goals and priorities were,
but when I look at the land
use table for this property,
what's allowable for the
property, a theater is
permitted, but then it goes
into some prohibited uses
that sound sort of as a
crossover here prohibited
uses include indoor
entertainment, outdoor
entertainment and community
events.

And so I think this is an
important discussion to have
and especially to be able to
track back to what the
intent of the -- of the plan
was and the vision for what
kind of uses were going to
be there so I hope that we
can get this sort of all on
the table because obviously
a theater will host
performances.

What kind of performances
and when does something
change from a theater
performance to indoor

[09:12:03]

entertainment.

And if the planning
department is going and try
and sort through that now, i
think it would be good to
touch base with the
community and some folks
that were around when this
particular plan was in place
because something was
intended and I'm not sure
exactly what that was.

And if we need to get
clarification at the council
level, we can get that
clarification.

>> I know the planning
department is very keen to
get clarity on this as well
because our goal is to
revitalize all nine of the
transit villages.

And so how you place music
and how you place
entertainment in those
contexts is extremely
important.

And the theater, I will
reiterate, is an aallowable
use, but these tangential
uses that would also improve
the profitability of the
project fall outside that
use.

So I'm very hopeful that we
can get this resolved in the
next couple of days.

>> Morrison: I guess a
performance is allowed as
long as it doesn't entertain
you.

[Laughter]

>> you know, I think they
allow musicals, but only
good musicals.

>> Morrison: Right.

Okay, I appreciate your work
on that, if you could keep
us posted.

>> We're hopeful we can get
this resolved shortly.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Only
good music.

Good is in the eye of the
beholder.

Councilmember tovo.

>> Tovo: I didn't
completely catch about
pulling it.

Does that mean you are
pulling it from this week's
agenda?

>> Yes.

The planning department is
regrouping, the
developers -- we just want
to have absolute clarity
before we go forward.

>> Morrison: Great.

>> Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Okay, so attorney is here on
the clock so pursuant to
071 of the government
code, council will consult
with legal counsel regarding
the follow item, e-1, legal
issues related to the
november 6, 2012 election.

Without objection, we'll
good into executive session

[09:14:00]

on this item.

.

>> So the next item we can take
up on our agenda is a discussion
of any item on the agenda.

Remembering that there's not
necessarily going to be staff
here to address any questions
you might have from them.

Before we start, a reminder we
can't discuss items 95 through
98.

Those are the late posted items
and, of course, 72 hours has not
elapsed since they were close to
it at 9:59 on monday morning.

[10:42:07]

All right?

>> I have a quick one.

So we have just a couple of
proclamations today -- not
today -- I mean not today, on
thursday.

We have a group that's requested
a time certain and that's the
little -- that's some on the
brentwood neighborhood
association who would like a
time certain for the little
woodrow's case.

So I'm looking for some guidance
about what time is the most
appropriate.

I know we usually don't make
time certains for earlier than
6:30.

But in this case, we might do
that.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Yeah, we
,
00 --

>> Tovo: I guess I meant after
break.

Time certain events after break.

They've requested 6:00.

They requested 6:00.

30 because of
the dinner break.

Since we only have two
proclamations, I wanted to get
guidance as to what could be
back by 6:00.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I don't
know, I don't know the answer to
that question.

It depends.

It's highly unlikely.

00 public hearings, i
don't believe, posted.

No wait -- 2:00 public hearings.

So, it's just your preference
whatever time you want to
suggest as the earliest possible
time to hear that item.

And then, I mean, in the past
like last week, there was an
30, didn't get
back until almost 7:00.

So you can hear the item any
time after the posted time.

If you want a recommendation for
me, I'd say 6:00.

>> Go ahead with 6:00.

Get to it.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: All

[10:44:00]

right, we'll do that.

>> Tovo: All right.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I think
you'll probably have to --
you'll have to bring it up
formally pulling it off of the
agenda for the time certain of
6:00 at the meeting.

Anything else?

Any other items for discussion
except for 95 through 98?

All right.

That's all we have on our
agenda, then.

Without objection.

We stand adjourned at 10:45 a.m.